In the coming
parliament session there is supposed to be a thorough debate by MPs
on combating rising costs of living complained of by many
citizens.
One is left to wonder based on past performance of MPs in
parliament especially when threatened often with the party whip
whether there will be true debates this time.
If our MPs are really interested in such a debate then they should
go into it fully with heart and soul and not be held back in any
way due to their subservience arising from over-use of
administrative power or any the basic flaws with our system of
government.
Power is made of sterner stuff. To some it is never enough. For
forty years we have witnessed, A Westminster which exists in
name.
Westminster is unlike ours; It is a true democracy in its origin.
With no hidden administrative devices, the true Westminster
parliament does not grant any higher, hidden or implied power to
PM.
The Westminster parliament recognizes that parliament is supreme
and no PM or anyone can have higher power to prevent it from making
any representation by elected MPs against any policy or question
any acts.
It is wrong for the PM to usurp the power of the electorate who
elected MPs that represent them via the supreme parliament
Yet our MPs seem helpless in checking on any past policies of
government which resulted in rising costs of living to no end due
to over-taxing and profiteering by the government over the
years.
What happens to our parliament and MPs. Are they all yes-men or is
there a basic flaw in our system like the interpretation of power
of PM being flawed. Are the flaws attributable to interpretation
errors such as PM being first among peers being too narrowly
interpreted due to over-bearing use of hidden administrative acts,
resulting in our MPs being unable to effectively exercise their
higher and nobler duties to represent the people.
Shouldn't MPs be permitted to raise issues with decisions or
policies made by cabinets or PM?
Must such power be held supreme over that of parliament?
For example, if PM decides there will be no welfare or free lunches
for any men and declares it a disastrous road of nationhood that
decision of policy ought to have been debated thoroughly, to ensure
no misunderstanding, abuse.
But has there been such a thorough and objective debate on such a
major policy affecting all citizens?
Has there been over-zealousness resulting in the whole government
resorting to over-taxing and profiteering schemes of all kinds to
avoid or in the name of avoiding welfare but in actual fact it
allows the government to hoard taxes and monies causing ever-rising
costs of living and loss of economic competitiveness.
A proper debate should have reasoned out the whole policy of
non-welfarism with perspective to prevent side effects and adverse
consequences.
The reasoning should have thrashed out all pros and cons and
recognised that while withholding spending on basic services to
citizens the government should at the same time correspondingly
grant citizens enough leeway too to make a living with free
enterprise and be not subjected to over-taxing in housing or
transportations or any other services.
The citizens in a non-welfare state ought to be given liberal
trading and commerce to make a living to help themselves and avoid
relying on the state for welfare or services or subsidies and not
be heavily taxed.
Under such a non-welfare system citizens should be taxed just
enough to fund basic services of government and not be subjected to
fending for themselves and at the same time still have to allow
government to over-tax and make profits for all sorts of reasons or
excuses like selling public housing at the maximum market prices on
lands already owned by citizens and paid with their own tax
monies.
If the government is to engage in such taxing and profiteering
schemes as stated in transportations, medical cares and housing etc
then it is only right that the government should set aside all the
profits and surpluses withheld to provide for people's basis
services and help them to overcome rising costs of living.
Our government should not tax, double charge and make extra profits
from lands and assets already collectively owned by citizens to no
end,
Given below is a poem for your understanding of our
problems:-
Sad but true, history has proven yet again
Humble men could be bought by power,
Intoxicated, men do change service mindset,
Law and power go hand in hand,
With power of Westminster kind,
Power was assumed by the PM as first among peers,
Parliament however is supreme and not appendage,
The centre of power in parliament never change,
Alas misunderstood by PM of our parliament,
Parliament was elected by the people,
Whereas PM only assumed by croak of convention,
To have legitimacy of power,
Why has our PM special power over MPs and parliament,
It might be only by tenuous croak of convention,
He merely holds sway over parliament and MPs,
Yet prevails the convention that vanquishes all foes,
Scholars and talents were only the basics,
Yet by assumed power traded they like commodity,
What duty and service do they uphold to the nation,
All but hoodwinked as yes-men by pragmatism
Talks of meritocracy only power play,
Scholars said to be worth millions
Yet none that came and went,
Ever lifted finger to free people of burdens,
With the millions scholars ensured,
Glorified status and haloed career enjoyed
Yet citizens were left to fend against rising costs,
Over and over they do all the power bidding,
With one scheme or another all for profits,
Wrangling of laws and reasons immaterial,
Self-service finally the greatest of all,
After all they say the sun will rise another day,
Best service wherefore is self,
Without morality or service all problems denied,
Values, wisdom, morality, came tumbling,
Never will prick the conscience of them,
Mighty is such Westminster power,
With money scholars and fame could be bought,
To kings and princes, come hither,
Why bother come play power my way Back
to top
